Having read the article, He's not saying terrorism is a good thing.
He's looking at terrorism from an academic lens and discuss how terrorists are rational actors who use tactics that make sense to achieve their goals, twisted and evil as those goals may be.
From an academic perspective when you’re looking at outcomes of an action then yeah, he’s not wrong. Terrorism gets shit moving that’s for sure.
Just because he made the argument that an outcome exists for a certain action doesn’t mean he advocates for the use of it.
If OP was less offended at what they perceive as a Lib saying anything, they might take a moment to consider how terror has even been a working component of war since the industrial revolution. Semantic wise we don't call it terrorism, sure, but in terms of instilling civilian terror, it's literally a component of warfare. From the London Blitz to the Dresden Firestorm, Tokyo Firestorm, nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombing campaign over North Vietnam / Laos / Cambodia (Laos and Cambodia remain to this day the most mined / bombed countries in history with ordinance still claiming lives even), drone warfare in Afghanistan, the ways Iran and Iraq exchanged missiles over their decade of war, the ways Russia is targeting Ukraine, the ways Israel is waging a campaign of communal punishment targeting civilians Gaza, etc - State-driven civilian terror is literally a component of modern warfare and is so intentionally.
Sure it might be under the guise of destroying industry and a nations capability *too* fight war, but the measure of success in that capability is how civilian casualties are factored into those attacks, how attacks intentionally create a wake of displacement that itself compounds suffering, and so on.
Heck the war on terror has killed 3 to 4 *million* people, the bulk of whom are through displacement created by the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Civilian casualties were so high during the US occupation and counter insurgency mission that the US military command didn't even bother tracking civilian casualties, lol.
As the other posture said. Terror has been used since forever to keep civilians in line, often by their rulers. The biggest terrorists of tubes past are often, and someone's solely, the rulers.
Aside from that, terrorizing populations was a big go to for a lot of imaging armies, to the point that instructions such as, "rape, kill, then loot," may at times have been necessary.
The question is how should we take this information?
Some are taking it to mean "terrorists should do more terrorism to affect change".
I'm taking it to mean "we should do more to stop capitulating to terrorists, and instead work harder to obliterate them, so they stop learning that terrorism works".
It's all the evidence Israel needs to continue to try to destroy Hamas - if they fail in their military efforts, Hamas will learn that terrorism is a "rational strategy with high success rates", and Israel will be attacked again.
And now they have an academic argument to support them.
I mean yea. If you want people to do something, a very effective way is to make them very scared of not doing it. You don't have to be an academic to know that.
Just because someone did academic research or made the academic argument that this is true does not mean that they endorse this. The argument doesn't follow.
This also doesn't mean that he's talking about terrorism in the 9/11 sense. State enforced terror is the most politically effective form of terror.
Baffling that people don’t understand that an academic paper is not an opinion piece.
Though I guess that explains the state of affairs in the world today…
What next? Genocide is an effective strategy?
Also, terrorism never gets shit moving, all it does is makes the victim of terrorism respond with highly lethal force which ends up taking more lives of the party doing/advocating for terrorist acts. We all saw this happen in aftermath 9/11, saw this happening with ISIS, saw this happening with basically every insurgent/terror group. Terrorism basically gives the government a justification to use lethal force and stop negotiations
#Hence, it is an absurd argument to make.
>What next? Genocide is an effective strategy?
I mean it is if you can get away with it? Pre-modern history shows that if a people oppose whatever you're trying to do, its pretty effective to just make them not a people anymore.
The natives were genocided pretty hard in America. That seemed pretty effective no? While they were never totally liquidated, the Natives have totally lost almost all political power that isn't granted to them, all military power as well as their independence.
As the saying goes: ***Carthago delenda est***
>Also, terrorism never gets shit moving, all it does is makes the victim of terrorism respond with highly lethal force which ends up taking more lives of the party doing/advocating for terrorist acts. We all saw this happen in aftermath 9/11, saw this happening with ISIS, saw this happening with basically every insurgent/terror group. Terrorism basically gives the government a justification to use lethal force and stop negotiations
You're example is a non-state entity attacking the most powerful nation ever to exist on its home soil. A nation that was at **that time** the uncontested superpower in a monopolar world and was only held back from utterly destroying the groups that attacked it because its own citizenry didn't care enough to pay the cost in lives. If the USA wanted to respond to Osama Bin Laden by killing every single person in Afghanistan, nobody could've stopped them
Comparatively there are governments in places like Africa that are very unequipped to deal with the terror groups and state backed ones at that rampaging through their territory.
Compare the impacts of colonialism on South Africa to Canada as an example of the effectiveness of genocide for the colonizer. One still exists, while the other has largely reverted to indigenous rule.
Terror isn't just acts of international violence. The Taliban are still terrorizing the population they claim to govern. Hell, I'd argue some American politicians are terrorists at this point.
And "rational" in the context of this discussion means thought out, strategic, and in pursuit of a particular outcome. Not "rational" like "good," which the author is saying is contrary to the common belief that terror is a series of rogue, emotional or ideologically-driven behaviours/actions, it's in fact a strategic approach to achieving a particular goal. That seems like highly important information to know about how and why terrorism operates.
Genocide is an extremely effective strategy for killing people living on land you want to occupy. The entire 19th century history of North America can be written as one long genocide against native people, and you can't say that wasn't effective.
Yeah.. I agree. Terrorism is only effective at making people upset with the terrorists and firing up the military industrial complex.
Where exactly has it had a “high success rate”? Even academically.
Use of irregular, paramilitary action, tar and feathering, burning people out of their homes if they don't side with the rebels forcing The loyalists to flee to Canada. Some would say the rebels use of asymmetrical warfare too.
> Where exactly has it had a “high success rate”?
Historically? Just look at what the Mongols did, so much of their conquest was on the basis of instilling terror in areas which did not surrender so as to make more places surrender in the future. There's about a bazillion examples of the use of terror to reach goals historically, either as part of a broader military, political, or economic strategy or a strategy which was entirely based on terror. Why does the current regime continue to rule in Iran?
For a more modern example we could look at "The Management of Savagery" by Abu Bakr Naji. The text lays out a pathway for jihadist factions to conduct terror operations, within a number of different & distinct phases, that would eventually result in overcoming local security forces and establishing rule. If you look at how IS came to control large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria, the text was clearly influential in some aspects of thinking.
One could also look at the Taliban taking control in Afghanistan, it was the installation of terror in the Afghan population, and specifically the ANA, which led massive swaths of Afghan territory to be taken without firing a shot after nearly two decades of fighting.
You seem to be looking at the argument solely in a very modern context, and only in the view of non state actors at that. Was the massacre at tiananmen square not the application of terror? The fact that Chinese people are hesitant to even acknowledge if they know about it or not is a pretty good illustration of how terror works, with a massacre & arbitrary detentions being the terror which keeps the population in line
It’s an objectively correct opinion. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. To topple a nation state means to usurp its monopoly on violence, the rest follows in due course.
Especially when it comes to academic arguments. I wrote a paper that North Korea should have nuclear weapons to ensure the states survival and that deal with the United States that involves de-nuclearization is bad for North Korea. It was an academic exercise in analyzing a states desire for nuclear weapons a means of self-defence. Doesn’t mean I like or support the Kim regime but it would be ignorant to suggest that a large reason why North Korea hasn’t been toppled has nothing to do with their nuclear status. My academic argument doesn’t take into consideration my personal opinion, instead I have to take an objective assessment of North Korean nuclear policy as a matter of state sovereignty.
I’d hope one day that no one would take that paper as me supporting North Korea, something I most certainly do not support in my personal opinion.
Might be so, question is whether you want to live in a world where anyone with an agenda is legitimized to try to break their country's monopoly on violence.
Sounds real nice intellectually until you lose your 7th relative to a bus bombing for some random terror organization.
Great comment. Often the same forces that push a people to violence are the ones that eventually bring them back to the ballot box. It’s unfortunate that sometimes the state monopoly on violence creates an untenable situation and forfeits the consent of the governed for a period of time.
Terrorism will also forfeit the rights of the governed, as the state's best course of action may be to stomp ruthlessly on the necks of the terrorists and anyone who associates with them.
It worked well for the Soviets, the Nazis, and Mao. Egypt successfully stamped out the Muslim Brotherhood recently.
Maybe the state just needs to have a strong enough apparatus of repression, and most third-world countries that try this fail because they have inherently weak and chaotic systems of repression.
Well, the Soviet Union fell apart and much of the old commbloc is in NATO now. Deng saved China from continuing to be a basket case. The Nazis, we can take that as read. You can suppress it but the children and grandchildren of those that are killed may choose to keep fighting.
Hell Israel itself was founded by terrorists and the terrorist organizations Haganah and Irgun became what is the IDF today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
Note that they won though so Wikipedia is careful to name the people who blew up bridges, murdered civilians and blew up a hotel as *insurgents* and a *resistance movement*.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Resistance_Movement
Might makes right I guess.
Bit wild to call the Haganah a terrorist org considering they had a non reprisal policy for some odd 15 years. Won’t disagree on the Irgun but they were a fraction of the size of the Haganah and considered dissidents. The Irgun did more to hinder Israel’s political goals than support.
Might has always made right. It is the foundation of the modern nation-state upon which all modern geopolitics is built, just as it was the foundation of all prior political entities. All politics is a struggle for power; the ultimate kind of power is violence.
It’s actually political philosopher C. Wright Mills. All authority is defined by violence, or the threat of violence. In the realm of politics, it is absolutely the ultimate power. I’ve seen people refute this with “the power of imagination” or “the power of voluntary cooperation” but until we see a nation state enforce its will via imagination (laughable) or voluntary cooperation (pure idealism) violence will remain the ultimate power.
I don't disagree that the control over force - or violence - undergirds the state and who controls it matters tremendously. But that isn't the measure of ultimate power. Power of imagination, power to influence and inspire, the power of discovery and technological advancement - ultimately these are stronger powers than violence.
How did the bolsheviks, the CCP, the Jacobins, the Haitians, the Young Turks, the Viet Cong, the Irgun and Haganah, the 26th of July movement, etc etc etc all manage? Two small left wing ideological cliques in the United States collapse into failure and suddenly violent revolt is a politically unviable strategy? Give me a break.
>How did the bolsheviks, the CCP, the Jacobins, the Haitians, the Young Turks, the Viet Cong, the Irgun and Haganah, the 26th of July movement, etc etc etc all manage
And how well are all those movements doing after the trail of death they left behind doing oh and you forgot Pol Pot in there
How well are the governments they overthrew doing? Oh what, they’re all dead? Sounds like the terrorism was pretty effective.
Edit: plus the Cuban, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Israeli government are all still in power lol
Oh and wait all but what 2 of them have been overthrow since leaving a trail of even more dead bodies behind. I can't believe you are defending this shit
I’m not defending anything, I’m agreeing with the broad academic opinion that organized and politically directed campaigns of mass violence are effective at facilitating regime change and significant socioeconomic and political changes within a relatively short amount of time. Which is an objectively true statement. You’re trying to have a non-sequitur discussion about the morality of post-revolutionary governments. If you can’t parse basic discussions of political history and political theory, I would suggest staying out of them.
Lions hunt gazelle - that’s an objective fact. That doesn’t mean if I publish this fact that I think gazelle deserve to or should die. You need to learn to separate observations from moral positions.
He is not making a moral argument on the effectiveness of a long term strategy which has its origins in terror, but the CCP is doing great today last I checked. It doesn't mean they're good for the people of China, but they are good for the CCP
The IRA defeated the British in the Irish War for independence. They were undoubtedly terrorists but they were fucking right in what they did and they couldn't have whacked enough of those bastards tbh. Ireland is doing quite well now out of the ashes of rebellion and the subsequent, yet short lived l, civil war.
The ira killed approximately 600 civilians; it could have easily been higher. Many of their attacks weren't designed to avoid civilian casualties, and many of the bombings actually made civilian casualties more likely. You can agree with some of their political stances, without saying they were undoubtedly 'right'.
Different IRA, different conversation. I think you are talking about the PIRA from the 60s onward. I am talking about the IRA that arose out of the 1916 rising that fought in the Irish war of independence from 1919 to 1921 which ultimately won Ireland's independence from near 800 years of fucking colonial rule!
The old ira also was estimated to have killed approximately 575 civilians; including after combat had ended. Again, I'm not saying the irish weren't fighting for independence (for good reason) and civil war isn't messy, but contrast that to an estimated 35 ira aligned civilian deaths during that time frame. It was sloppy, and targeted. Were they angry after years of oppression? Yes. Did they target civilians? Also yes. One of those things is understandable. The other is not. 900 dead british soldiers, approximately 600 dead british civilians. That is a 2/3 ratio.
As someone of irish descent, ireland could have won her freedom without targetting civilians. The murders in belfast were no accident, or part of the crossfire. It was just murder.
Sure, they got taken apart by the FBI, but they weren’t building popular support when active early on. Within a generally functioning country like the US, militant left-wing groups like them are most likely to provoke a right-wing backlash (which they did).
The panthers are still revered in the Bay Area so I’m not sure where you get the notion they were lacking in support within their community. Civil rights provoked the backlash, groups like the Deacons of defence, the communists and later the Panthers took up arms to hold space for their movement and showed considerable discipline in the face of constant provocation from law enforcement. I don’t think we can bring back the panthers in the current context, but I do think we ought to evaluate them within the broader social changes of the late 60’s.
Yeah, the Bay Area likes its radicals, the issue is when you scare the rest of the state and entire country into electing Richard Nixon in an insane landslide to crack down on groups like the Panthers and Weathermen, which is what happened. Even members of those groups acknowledged later on that their crazy belief they were leading some popular revolution in the US was batshit insane in retrospect and resulted in an authoritarian crackdown on leftists that led to conservatives dominating the next several elections at the state and federal level.
MLK and his people did not have that same response. Obviously a lot of people hated them, but public support for them only went up over time and as a result they got a lot of real things done before the younger, angrier radicals squandered it all by going full militant.
Ironically I feel like I could have posted a link to You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship, the anarchist case against terrorism and left it at that.
It's why COINTELPRO and other undisclosed projects were started. To ensure that any counterculture or rebellious movements were quashed as early as possible.
Regarding the black panthers, didn’t american civil rights achieve quite a bit during their existence? They didn’t have a flawless victory, but their goals were furthered.
Those things were achieved before the Panthers by MLK and the people who cared about building and maintaining popular support. The Panthers mostly gave us Nixon and an extreme right-wing backlash.
Infiltrated, co-opted, and dismantled from the inside by the the Government.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)
People make a big whoop about members of groups like the Weather Underground becoming respected "academics" and advisors. Those were the guys who cooperated with the governments and got a pass.
It’s an objectively INCORRECT opinion.
What next? Genocide is an effective strategy?
Also, terrorism never gets shit moving, all it does is makes the victim of terrorism respond with highly lethal force which ends up taking more lives of the party doing/advocating for terrorist acts. We all saw this happen in aftermath 9/11, saw this happening with ISIS, saw this happening with basically every insurgent/terror group. Terrorism basically gives the government a justification to use lethal force and stop negotiations
#Not a single terror group has been successful in achieving its “mission” Hamas, ISIS, Alqaeda, Boko haram, etc have all failed.
#Hence, it is an absurd argument to make.
Genocide is an effective strategy at removing an ethnic group the genocidaire wants removed, otherwise genocide wouldn’t happen. Terrorism worked for the Taliban, the Hutu in Rwanda, the mujahideen, the Jacobins, the Irgun and Haganah, the Chinese communists, the Russian communists, the Vietnamese communists, the Cuban communists, and countless other groups throughout history. Of course terrorism is an effective strategy, otherwise there would never be terrorists. Are you dumb?
>What next? Genocide is an effective strategy?
Of course genocide is an effective strategy. The reason it's wrong isn't that it doesn't work, it's that it works too well.
> its monopoly on violence
This is one of those weird political buzzwords that I consistently fail to make any sense of. It doesn't mean anything. There's no such thing as a "monopoly on violence". Anyone can be violent.
I strongly suggest reading up on your political philosophy, the monopoly of violence is a widely discussed and well defined topic. It’s very much not a meaningless buzzword, it’s the foundation upon which states are built. There’s even a Wikipedia page on the topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
TLDR: an agent of the state can legally use violence in the enforcement of his duties, a citizen can only use violence legally in specifically defined incidents of self defense. A citizen cannot act in self defense against an agent of the state without legal repercussions.
>the monopoly of violence is a widely discussed
Yeah but something being widely discussed doesn't mean it's not completely devoid of meaning or substance. Scientology is widely discussed. That's an ad populum argument.
> TLDR: an agent of the state can legally use violence
Legally to whom? Is there some international court that would come and say "what your nation-state is doing is illegal"?
What difference does this make in a democracy? In a democracy, I elect the state.
Most developed states have similar rules for citizens that they do for police aka "state enforcers of violence".
This is like saying The State has a monopoly on bus driving because they employ bus drivers but I can only drive buses in very specific circumstances. Who cares? What is the value of this argument?
>”legally to whom?”
Itself, obviously. Maintaining the monopoly on violence, that is, criminalizing organized non-state parties that seek to enforce violence, and criminalizing violence against property or person save for specific circumstances, is the very mechanism through which a state legitimizes itself. That is, it maintains law, order, and governance over a region by ensuring any actor faces legal repercussions for using violence in a way the state deems illegal. If it loses that monopoly, the state destabilizes and loses control of a region. Think of the neighborhoods in Mexico where the local enforcers are all cartel, rather than uncorrupt members of the Mexican national government. These regions are in essence outside of government control because the cartel uses violence to enforce its own laws and regulations, it has monopolized violence in the controlled region.
>”what difference does this make in a democracy?”
Well, in a stable democracy, the monopoly on violence is passed between executive administrations peacefully, all agents of the government adhere to the new executive administration. In an unstable democracy, the party in power may not desire to pass on the monopoly, it may use the monopoly to enact legally sanctioned violence against its political opposition, including assassination, imprisonment, exile, etc etc. no matter the form of government, democratic or authoritarian, the government wields this monopoly.
>”most developed states have similar rules for citizens as they do for state enforcers of violence”
Of course they do, if the state enforcers can act with total impunity, whether they are police or military, the stability of the nation-state would be severely threatened. The nation-state must ensure that it is protected from the citizens it polices as well as the agents it sends to do the policing. Just because the state dictates what level of violence its enforcers can use given various circumstances is by no means a contradiction. Police in the United States, for example, are beholden to protocol, but have substantial leeway in the form of qualified immunity. They have extra protection in the enforcement of violence that citizens do not, because they enforce violence in situations which are not self defense. A police officer can legally hold you at gunpoint if he suspects you committed a crime. A citizen cannot do so unless protecting himself or his property, and even then, the citizen is beholden to regulations on appropriate use of force that vary from state to state which are much stricter than regulations for police.
>”who cares?”
Understanding how nation-states function, from their creation, to their maintenance over time, is pretty important politically. It helps us understand past and current political situations, such as the Taliban becoming the de jure government of Afghanistan, and to predict future political situations. The Taliban became the de jure government of Afghanistan by monopolizing violence, which the former de jure government was too weak to maintain. If you don’t see the importance in understanding the nature of existing or prior geopolitical entities and the methods through which they exist, that’s fine, but people in positions to affect geopolitics should and often do care, or at least they hire cabinets and advisors who do.
This is a rage bait article, there is a huge difference in pointing out that terrorism has worked in the favour of many factions effectively, and supporting it yourself, redditors wouldn’t get that though.
From the headline, it doesn't even sound like they're taking a position. It's honestly one of the most neutral headlines I've read in a while but I can see how someone scrolling past and not really taking it it could read it as inflammatory.
Yes, IMO. There's an enormous difference between calculated armed resistance against the other armed apparatus of the State and indiscriminate terrorism. Ché Guevara also concluded that acts of terror largely harmed the Cuban revolutionary efforts by forfeiting its bravest combatants for what ends up being a propaganda deficit.
Individual acts of terror are also fruitless. What did Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, or any of the recent mass killers achieve? Nothing, except making some fertilizers and firearms subject to more regulation -- gg.
The paper doesn’t reference indiscriminate terrorism. It’s a discussion on the transition in armed conflict methodology. The paper is correct. This article is implying that the author is stating that terrorism is morally viable. What they’re actually saying is that it has been an effective tool in modern armed conflict.
Hmm, going to need a source for that allegation about Che. It's been a while since I read his book, but him and Cinfuegos didn't seem to have any problem with bombings and ambushes. The Americans have been training reactionary Cuban terrorists ever since and all it has done is create a huge security liability or them in Florida.
> Timothy McVeigh
McVeigh actually changed US govt policy on how they approached right wing extremists, you can find statements from former officials very high in the FBI, DOJ, etc. who state McVeigh 100% changed how they approached certain events & that they needed to avoid the optics of events like Ruby Ridge & Waco. You don't have to agree with their actions, or even the fact they did change policy, to acknowledge that policy can be changed from acts of terrorism
> Ted Kaczynski
I mean, we're still talking about him and reading the manifesto if you're curious enough. You can kinda sorta see where he was coming from. He was a nutjob but I guess he thought he was reaching within his grasp as far as getting his message out.
He was a genius who had a psychotic break and thought it was necessary enough that he had to make violent threats to ensure that people heard it.
There are semi-nonviolent protests that are basically just proofs of concept, [like this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Luty).
Both were ineffective. They worked against themselves. They just made the unthinking cohort more scared. Just own-goals.
We're too atomized to have a realistic Roundheads vs. Royalists situation.
"Terrorism" works if it's organized rebellion, not just madmen.
Get serious. Saying its effective is akin to endorsing it. Just like you shouldn't go around telling people how dealing drugs is an effective way to make money.
If one were in charge of coming up with a plan of action for dealing with drug dealers in their city/country/whatever, I would actually be deeply concerned if they were unable to acknowledge that dealing drugs does make people a lot of money. It would indicate that they are either ignorant of the facts, or wilfully denying reality. Either way, they would not be capable of addressing the problem properly.
Understanding what draws people toward undesirable actions is step one of addressing them.
If you're someone advocating for human rights, you need to understand how rights violators operate. It's not cynical, it sounds like a basic competency of the job to me.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has nothing to do with terrorism. They hear complaints from people thinking being asked to do their job is a violation of their human rights.
>has nothing to do with terrorism.
I disagree. I'm going to use an obvious and extreme example that we're all familiar with: the Taliban (terrorists) run Afghanistan, right? Part of their terror campaign is making women and girls afraid to exist in public because of all the rules banning them from participating outside the home. The risk imprisonment, torture, death, and so forth -- that's the terror part, and the targeted group is having their rights violated under the regime's rules. It is extremely effective, and by "rational" I understand that they mean the Taliban are not acting willy-nilly - controlling women and girls is a way to control 50% of the population. "Rational" doesn't mean good, it means strategic and in pursuit of a particular outcome.
Now zoom down - you can probably see how "terror" manifests to a lesser degree in ways you're familiar with: bosses who discourage accommodations and threaten a loss of promotion if they're used, is one example.
IK what the CHRC does, but I will also push back on it only being a tribunal/administrative process; they are also responsible for understanding systemic and structural manifestations of power and oppression, rights promotions and violations, etc.
I feel like you are having trouble distinguishing between (1) endorsement of a tactic pursued in a political contest qua it's morality, and (2) noting, irrespective of morality, that the historical record shows the tactic is successful
that's an argument to have with this new human rights appointee person. I'm agnostic on this question, I haven't read their paper. I will say though that there is some real thought police shit happening in this thread: people are getting made for an argument this person made with no actual attempt to understand the argument or critically examin it against any evidence.
This is not a standard definition. In this context, what is meant is that terrorism is (apparently) likely to advance the political goals of political extremists, at what they consider to be an acceptable cost.
Understanding that they think this way, and that they will often receive positive reinforcement for following through on these thoughts (in that their political beliefs will often actually be advanced) is necessary to oppose them and to care for their victims.
Understanding a disease doesn’t mean you agree with it.
Understanding what your opponent thinks their best move in a game is doesn’t mean you agree. And if you do agree, it doesn’t mean that you want them to play it.
I forgot terrorism arrived only in the 2010’s and most suicide bombers identified as he/hims and recognized that they walked on occupied land before blowing themselves up /s
You’re literally doing the same thing, making assumptions about someone and their competency based on their identity, instead of their skills. Perhaps read the article and look a bit deeper? You can make an academic argument about something without supporting it yourself.
Get out of your echo chamber and stop being the mindless parrot you’re assuming others of being.
>when you pick based on identity politics and not skills
Can you explain what you mean by this? What does it mean to be picked "based on identity politics"?
They have no idea, they're simply spouting whatever they've been spoon fed.
An academic writing a paper discussing the practical efficacy of terrorism in an asymmetric power dynamic is totally different from advocating for terrorism.
Indeed, to fight terrorism and terrorists, wouldn't one of the first, and most important tasks be to try to understand them?
This is a non story, except for the calls for censorship.
Well, supporting terrorism, whether it’s you or a high-level official who has power over human rights cases that could involve antisemitism is a concern.
Here’s a tip: don’t ever support terrorism.
> Here’s a tip: don’t ever support terrorism.
Got it, I'll stop supporting the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, the Arab Spring movement, and Nelson Mandela.
Have no opinions on the guy, but I’m not going to judge him based on a theoretical academic argument. I’m a strong believer in the right to free speech, especially in an academic setting. Coming to such an unsavory conclusion may allow governments to understand certain actions and better defend against them.
Another shit article by the Globe and Mail. Kind of sad too that redditors on here can’t think hard enough that just because he’s from that he’s a bad public servant. Headline suggests that he supports terrorism, when he actually just wrote an article about the effectiveness of terrorism on geopolitical landscapes. It would be like if we started shitting on a researcher for describing the biology behind infanticide because “how could someone whose not evil ever do that”
Choices based upon idealogy and not merit usually don't work out well.
This is yet another one.
The idea of background checks and semi-adequate HR practices are not factors.
This is a plausible scenario but for any government to easily and quickly increase their power they can stage a terrorist attack.
If they want to reduce the public’s attention on an important issue get the media to focus on a foreign or domestic terrorist attack.
If your enemy is not admitting defeat you can hire mercenary/terrorist groups to stage attacks on infrastructure or to simply cause as much chaos in a population center.
If you’re a terrorist group you can engage in these vile acts against your enemies continuously for the purpose of destroying your enemies morale, accept some agreement or have them not be able to fulfill certain obligations with their own allies.
[Non paywall](https://archive.is/TaiDb)
Because JFC
and keep in mind this is who will be in charge of some parts of the enforcement of Bill C-63
Edit : I would love to get access to this
[Populism and the International Law of Self-Determination: Charting the Emergence of Populist Legal Movements from South Africa to Palestine](https://brill.com/view/journals/pyio/18/1/article-p92_4.xml)
"*Birju Dattani, who this month was appointed by Justice Minister Arif Virani* as the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, was criticized this week for failing to disclose his past activities as a graduate student in London when applying for the post.
Jewish groups and MPs said this week that he should have divulged, among other things, that in 2015 *when pursuing graduate studies in Britain under the name Mujahid Dattani*, he had shared panels with a former Guantanamo bay detainee about the war on terror, and a member of an Islamic fundamentalist group that favours global Sharia law."
Lived under 2 different names....that adds to the greasiness. One of the first acts of the next government should be to kick this individual to the curb.
So... what was his take on how international law and self-determination deals with non-state violence? I feel like that's the really important bit here, and the preview isn't enough to say.
One person's terror group is often another person's freedom fighter.
During WWII a lot of anti-German resistance fighters could reasonably be called terrorists by the German government based on the activities of the groups.
Combined with his online moniker "Mujahid" - an Islamic term for someone engaged in jihad, this is deeply concerning - it looks like religious cult hijacking of our democratic institutions. All of this looks like a planned campaign - both Liberal minister of justice Arif Virani and Mr Dattani hail from Muslim minority in Uganda, and belong to the same Islamic Ishmailian sect. Arif Virani designs Bill C-63, and claims he intends to use it to prosecute those who he considers "anti-Islam". He then hires Mr Dattani as a commissioner to oversee Bill C-63 implementation.
Im actually really impressed with the overall discussion happening on this thread and those that are taking the time to explain this concept to others.
Of course! Nothing more comforting than unfolding a satchel of the tools of the trade in front of a tied up unwilling participant. Facial impressions are priceless
Needs an immediate termination from position. Terrorism is neither rational nor ever "accomplishes" anything. You think you've got what you want, but you've traumatized or killed people.
I guess according to his logic then, waterboarding is also an effective method for hydrating prisoners?.....my issue rests with where this so-called logical discourse runs in everyday calculations concerning human rights violations.
I think this person should either be forced to stand up and explain/defend their actions...and resign if necessary.
I wonder how often these types of things are used in the public.
I'd imagine more than we think.
The non-stop 24/7 doom cycle that was covid felt like psychological terrorism.
Having read the article, He's not saying terrorism is a good thing. He's looking at terrorism from an academic lens and discuss how terrorists are rational actors who use tactics that make sense to achieve their goals, twisted and evil as those goals may be.
Many nations wouldn't be independent without "terrorism". Ireland, my country for one.
United States too
From an academic perspective when you’re looking at outcomes of an action then yeah, he’s not wrong. Terrorism gets shit moving that’s for sure. Just because he made the argument that an outcome exists for a certain action doesn’t mean he advocates for the use of it.
Pffft. Get out of here with that logic, the mob wants pitchforks!
Which, ironically enough, proves their point.
Proves HIS point*
If OP was less offended at what they perceive as a Lib saying anything, they might take a moment to consider how terror has even been a working component of war since the industrial revolution. Semantic wise we don't call it terrorism, sure, but in terms of instilling civilian terror, it's literally a component of warfare. From the London Blitz to the Dresden Firestorm, Tokyo Firestorm, nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombing campaign over North Vietnam / Laos / Cambodia (Laos and Cambodia remain to this day the most mined / bombed countries in history with ordinance still claiming lives even), drone warfare in Afghanistan, the ways Iran and Iraq exchanged missiles over their decade of war, the ways Russia is targeting Ukraine, the ways Israel is waging a campaign of communal punishment targeting civilians Gaza, etc - State-driven civilian terror is literally a component of modern warfare and is so intentionally. Sure it might be under the guise of destroying industry and a nations capability *too* fight war, but the measure of success in that capability is how civilian casualties are factored into those attacks, how attacks intentionally create a wake of displacement that itself compounds suffering, and so on. Heck the war on terror has killed 3 to 4 *million* people, the bulk of whom are through displacement created by the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Civilian casualties were so high during the US occupation and counter insurgency mission that the US military command didn't even bother tracking civilian casualties, lol.
Pfff “terrorism” has been around since we figured out how to sharpen sticks, it’s ancient. The word is the only new thing about it.
As the other posture said. Terror has been used since forever to keep civilians in line, often by their rulers. The biggest terrorists of tubes past are often, and someone's solely, the rulers. Aside from that, terrorizing populations was a big go to for a lot of imaging armies, to the point that instructions such as, "rape, kill, then loot," may at times have been necessary.
The question is how should we take this information? Some are taking it to mean "terrorists should do more terrorism to affect change". I'm taking it to mean "we should do more to stop capitulating to terrorists, and instead work harder to obliterate them, so they stop learning that terrorism works". It's all the evidence Israel needs to continue to try to destroy Hamas - if they fail in their military efforts, Hamas will learn that terrorism is a "rational strategy with high success rates", and Israel will be attacked again. And now they have an academic argument to support them.
I mean yea. If you want people to do something, a very effective way is to make them very scared of not doing it. You don't have to be an academic to know that. Just because someone did academic research or made the academic argument that this is true does not mean that they endorse this. The argument doesn't follow. This also doesn't mean that he's talking about terrorism in the 9/11 sense. State enforced terror is the most politically effective form of terror.
This. It is obviously very effective, hence, history? Guerilla warfare..?
The Republic of Ireland agrees.
Baffling that people don’t understand that an academic paper is not an opinion piece. Though I guess that explains the state of affairs in the world today…
What next? Genocide is an effective strategy? Also, terrorism never gets shit moving, all it does is makes the victim of terrorism respond with highly lethal force which ends up taking more lives of the party doing/advocating for terrorist acts. We all saw this happen in aftermath 9/11, saw this happening with ISIS, saw this happening with basically every insurgent/terror group. Terrorism basically gives the government a justification to use lethal force and stop negotiations #Hence, it is an absurd argument to make.
>What next? Genocide is an effective strategy? I mean it is if you can get away with it? Pre-modern history shows that if a people oppose whatever you're trying to do, its pretty effective to just make them not a people anymore. The natives were genocided pretty hard in America. That seemed pretty effective no? While they were never totally liquidated, the Natives have totally lost almost all political power that isn't granted to them, all military power as well as their independence. As the saying goes: ***Carthago delenda est*** >Also, terrorism never gets shit moving, all it does is makes the victim of terrorism respond with highly lethal force which ends up taking more lives of the party doing/advocating for terrorist acts. We all saw this happen in aftermath 9/11, saw this happening with ISIS, saw this happening with basically every insurgent/terror group. Terrorism basically gives the government a justification to use lethal force and stop negotiations You're example is a non-state entity attacking the most powerful nation ever to exist on its home soil. A nation that was at **that time** the uncontested superpower in a monopolar world and was only held back from utterly destroying the groups that attacked it because its own citizenry didn't care enough to pay the cost in lives. If the USA wanted to respond to Osama Bin Laden by killing every single person in Afghanistan, nobody could've stopped them Comparatively there are governments in places like Africa that are very unequipped to deal with the terror groups and state backed ones at that rampaging through their territory.
Compare the impacts of colonialism on South Africa to Canada as an example of the effectiveness of genocide for the colonizer. One still exists, while the other has largely reverted to indigenous rule.
Terror isn't just acts of international violence. The Taliban are still terrorizing the population they claim to govern. Hell, I'd argue some American politicians are terrorists at this point. And "rational" in the context of this discussion means thought out, strategic, and in pursuit of a particular outcome. Not "rational" like "good," which the author is saying is contrary to the common belief that terror is a series of rogue, emotional or ideologically-driven behaviours/actions, it's in fact a strategic approach to achieving a particular goal. That seems like highly important information to know about how and why terrorism operates.
Genocide is an extremely effective strategy for killing people living on land you want to occupy. The entire 19th century history of North America can be written as one long genocide against native people, and you can't say that wasn't effective.
Yeah.. I agree. Terrorism is only effective at making people upset with the terrorists and firing up the military industrial complex. Where exactly has it had a “high success rate”? Even academically.
The American revolution?
I’m actually not that familiar with it tbh but wasn’t it basically a civil war for independence? That would be distinctly different than terrorism.
Depends on who wins the conflict. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighters. The American Revolution was an armed insurrection.
Use of irregular, paramilitary action, tar and feathering, burning people out of their homes if they don't side with the rebels forcing The loyalists to flee to Canada. Some would say the rebels use of asymmetrical warfare too.
> Where exactly has it had a “high success rate”? Historically? Just look at what the Mongols did, so much of their conquest was on the basis of instilling terror in areas which did not surrender so as to make more places surrender in the future. There's about a bazillion examples of the use of terror to reach goals historically, either as part of a broader military, political, or economic strategy or a strategy which was entirely based on terror. Why does the current regime continue to rule in Iran? For a more modern example we could look at "The Management of Savagery" by Abu Bakr Naji. The text lays out a pathway for jihadist factions to conduct terror operations, within a number of different & distinct phases, that would eventually result in overcoming local security forces and establishing rule. If you look at how IS came to control large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria, the text was clearly influential in some aspects of thinking. One could also look at the Taliban taking control in Afghanistan, it was the installation of terror in the Afghan population, and specifically the ANA, which led massive swaths of Afghan territory to be taken without firing a shot after nearly two decades of fighting. You seem to be looking at the argument solely in a very modern context, and only in the view of non state actors at that. Was the massacre at tiananmen square not the application of terror? The fact that Chinese people are hesitant to even acknowledge if they know about it or not is a pretty good illustration of how terror works, with a massacre & arbitrary detentions being the terror which keeps the population in line
Those are good points. Especially Tiananmen.
It’s an objectively correct opinion. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. To topple a nation state means to usurp its monopoly on violence, the rest follows in due course.
An argument isn't necessarily an opinion.
Yeah I hate these days if you say a statement it’s automatically received as your subscribed opinion
Especially when it comes to academic arguments. I wrote a paper that North Korea should have nuclear weapons to ensure the states survival and that deal with the United States that involves de-nuclearization is bad for North Korea. It was an academic exercise in analyzing a states desire for nuclear weapons a means of self-defence. Doesn’t mean I like or support the Kim regime but it would be ignorant to suggest that a large reason why North Korea hasn’t been toppled has nothing to do with their nuclear status. My academic argument doesn’t take into consideration my personal opinion, instead I have to take an objective assessment of North Korean nuclear policy as a matter of state sovereignty. I’d hope one day that no one would take that paper as me supporting North Korea, something I most certainly do not support in my personal opinion.
Might be so, question is whether you want to live in a world where anyone with an agenda is legitimized to try to break their country's monopoly on violence. Sounds real nice intellectually until you lose your 7th relative to a bus bombing for some random terror organization.
Great comment. Often the same forces that push a people to violence are the ones that eventually bring them back to the ballot box. It’s unfortunate that sometimes the state monopoly on violence creates an untenable situation and forfeits the consent of the governed for a period of time.
Terrorism will also forfeit the rights of the governed, as the state's best course of action may be to stomp ruthlessly on the necks of the terrorists and anyone who associates with them.
Yes but that is typically the worst way to contain an insurgency. You’re doing the guerillas recruiting for them at that point.
It worked well for the Soviets, the Nazis, and Mao. Egypt successfully stamped out the Muslim Brotherhood recently. Maybe the state just needs to have a strong enough apparatus of repression, and most third-world countries that try this fail because they have inherently weak and chaotic systems of repression.
Well, the Soviet Union fell apart and much of the old commbloc is in NATO now. Deng saved China from continuing to be a basket case. The Nazis, we can take that as read. You can suppress it but the children and grandchildren of those that are killed may choose to keep fighting.
Hell Israel itself was founded by terrorists and the terrorist organizations Haganah and Irgun became what is the IDF today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah Note that they won though so Wikipedia is careful to name the people who blew up bridges, murdered civilians and blew up a hotel as *insurgents* and a *resistance movement*. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Resistance_Movement Might makes right I guess.
Bit wild to call the Haganah a terrorist org considering they had a non reprisal policy for some odd 15 years. Won’t disagree on the Irgun but they were a fraction of the size of the Haganah and considered dissidents. The Irgun did more to hinder Israel’s political goals than support.
Might has always made right. It is the foundation of the modern nation-state upon which all modern geopolitics is built, just as it was the foundation of all prior political entities. All politics is a struggle for power; the ultimate kind of power is violence.
Was with you until the comment “the ultimate power is violence.”
Well, you can disagree with Aristotle too then.
It’s actually political philosopher C. Wright Mills. All authority is defined by violence, or the threat of violence. In the realm of politics, it is absolutely the ultimate power. I’ve seen people refute this with “the power of imagination” or “the power of voluntary cooperation” but until we see a nation state enforce its will via imagination (laughable) or voluntary cooperation (pure idealism) violence will remain the ultimate power.
Sure. Aristotle was wrong on a lot of stuff. He was pretty sexist and we have move passed him on plenty of stuff.
Always was, always will be. That’s the foundation of a nation, monopoly on legitimate violence.
I don't disagree that the control over force - or violence - undergirds the state and who controls it matters tremendously. But that isn't the measure of ultimate power. Power of imagination, power to influence and inspire, the power of discovery and technological advancement - ultimately these are stronger powers than violence.
Imagine when you use all those power you listed towards violence and control (stabilization of your government)
Haganah was not a terrorist org with 30,000 militants while the Irgun was and had around 300 pre 47.
Yeah but "something something college boy identity politics, derp". Deal with it!
How did those Black Panthers and Weathermen manage?
How did the bolsheviks, the CCP, the Jacobins, the Haitians, the Young Turks, the Viet Cong, the Irgun and Haganah, the 26th of July movement, etc etc etc all manage? Two small left wing ideological cliques in the United States collapse into failure and suddenly violent revolt is a politically unviable strategy? Give me a break.
>How did the bolsheviks, the CCP, the Jacobins, the Haitians, the Young Turks, the Viet Cong, the Irgun and Haganah, the 26th of July movement, etc etc etc all manage And how well are all those movements doing after the trail of death they left behind doing oh and you forgot Pol Pot in there
Did he say it was an ethically good thing or that it worked?
How well are the governments they overthrew doing? Oh what, they’re all dead? Sounds like the terrorism was pretty effective. Edit: plus the Cuban, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Israeli government are all still in power lol
Oh and wait all but what 2 of them have been overthrow since leaving a trail of even more dead bodies behind. I can't believe you are defending this shit
I’m not defending anything, I’m agreeing with the broad academic opinion that organized and politically directed campaigns of mass violence are effective at facilitating regime change and significant socioeconomic and political changes within a relatively short amount of time. Which is an objectively true statement. You’re trying to have a non-sequitur discussion about the morality of post-revolutionary governments. If you can’t parse basic discussions of political history and political theory, I would suggest staying out of them.
Nobody can analyze anything without making value judgement. Average modern people don't understand objectivity, and you're objectively correct.
Yes objectivally you are correct in the short term but in the long term not so much
Wow. Are you a Nazi? According to them, should we, Canadians use violence to overthrow this corrupt government for good?
Lions hunt gazelle - that’s an objective fact. That doesn’t mean if I publish this fact that I think gazelle deserve to or should die. You need to learn to separate observations from moral positions.
Well Vietnam is still communist, Israel is a regional power, China is has ambitions to be a super power.
He is not making a moral argument on the effectiveness of a long term strategy which has its origins in terror, but the CCP is doing great today last I checked. It doesn't mean they're good for the people of China, but they are good for the CCP
The IRA defeated the British in the Irish War for independence. They were undoubtedly terrorists but they were fucking right in what they did and they couldn't have whacked enough of those bastards tbh. Ireland is doing quite well now out of the ashes of rebellion and the subsequent, yet short lived l, civil war.
The ira killed approximately 600 civilians; it could have easily been higher. Many of their attacks weren't designed to avoid civilian casualties, and many of the bombings actually made civilian casualties more likely. You can agree with some of their political stances, without saying they were undoubtedly 'right'.
Different IRA, different conversation. I think you are talking about the PIRA from the 60s onward. I am talking about the IRA that arose out of the 1916 rising that fought in the Irish war of independence from 1919 to 1921 which ultimately won Ireland's independence from near 800 years of fucking colonial rule!
The old ira also was estimated to have killed approximately 575 civilians; including after combat had ended. Again, I'm not saying the irish weren't fighting for independence (for good reason) and civil war isn't messy, but contrast that to an estimated 35 ira aligned civilian deaths during that time frame. It was sloppy, and targeted. Were they angry after years of oppression? Yes. Did they target civilians? Also yes. One of those things is understandable. The other is not. 900 dead british soldiers, approximately 600 dead british civilians. That is a 2/3 ratio.
Yep. So. Ireland won her freedom.
As someone of irish descent, ireland could have won her freedom without targetting civilians. The murders in belfast were no accident, or part of the crossfire. It was just murder.
You're not making the point you think you're making. COINTEL documents are declassified now for anyone to look up.
Sure, they got taken apart by the FBI, but they weren’t building popular support when active early on. Within a generally functioning country like the US, militant left-wing groups like them are most likely to provoke a right-wing backlash (which they did).
The panthers are still revered in the Bay Area so I’m not sure where you get the notion they were lacking in support within their community. Civil rights provoked the backlash, groups like the Deacons of defence, the communists and later the Panthers took up arms to hold space for their movement and showed considerable discipline in the face of constant provocation from law enforcement. I don’t think we can bring back the panthers in the current context, but I do think we ought to evaluate them within the broader social changes of the late 60’s.
Yeah, the Bay Area likes its radicals, the issue is when you scare the rest of the state and entire country into electing Richard Nixon in an insane landslide to crack down on groups like the Panthers and Weathermen, which is what happened. Even members of those groups acknowledged later on that their crazy belief they were leading some popular revolution in the US was batshit insane in retrospect and resulted in an authoritarian crackdown on leftists that led to conservatives dominating the next several elections at the state and federal level. MLK and his people did not have that same response. Obviously a lot of people hated them, but public support for them only went up over time and as a result they got a lot of real things done before the younger, angrier radicals squandered it all by going full militant.
Agreed. It never works when the left goes on the offensive like that.
Ironically I feel like I could have posted a link to You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship, the anarchist case against terrorism and left it at that.
It's why COINTELPRO and other undisclosed projects were started. To ensure that any counterculture or rebellious movements were quashed as early as possible.
Regarding the black panthers, didn’t american civil rights achieve quite a bit during their existence? They didn’t have a flawless victory, but their goals were furthered.
Those things were achieved before the Panthers by MLK and the people who cared about building and maintaining popular support. The Panthers mostly gave us Nixon and an extreme right-wing backlash.
Infiltrated, co-opted, and dismantled from the inside by the the Government. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) People make a big whoop about members of groups like the Weather Underground becoming respected "academics" and advisors. Those were the guys who cooperated with the governments and got a pass.
It’s an objectively INCORRECT opinion. What next? Genocide is an effective strategy? Also, terrorism never gets shit moving, all it does is makes the victim of terrorism respond with highly lethal force which ends up taking more lives of the party doing/advocating for terrorist acts. We all saw this happen in aftermath 9/11, saw this happening with ISIS, saw this happening with basically every insurgent/terror group. Terrorism basically gives the government a justification to use lethal force and stop negotiations #Not a single terror group has been successful in achieving its “mission” Hamas, ISIS, Alqaeda, Boko haram, etc have all failed. #Hence, it is an absurd argument to make.
Genocide is an effective strategy at removing an ethnic group the genocidaire wants removed, otherwise genocide wouldn’t happen. Terrorism worked for the Taliban, the Hutu in Rwanda, the mujahideen, the Jacobins, the Irgun and Haganah, the Chinese communists, the Russian communists, the Vietnamese communists, the Cuban communists, and countless other groups throughout history. Of course terrorism is an effective strategy, otherwise there would never be terrorists. Are you dumb?
>What next? Genocide is an effective strategy? Of course genocide is an effective strategy. The reason it's wrong isn't that it doesn't work, it's that it works too well.
I heard the bigger you make your text, the more correct you are
Worked for forcing Manitoba into confederation.
> its monopoly on violence This is one of those weird political buzzwords that I consistently fail to make any sense of. It doesn't mean anything. There's no such thing as a "monopoly on violence". Anyone can be violent.
I strongly suggest reading up on your political philosophy, the monopoly of violence is a widely discussed and well defined topic. It’s very much not a meaningless buzzword, it’s the foundation upon which states are built. There’s even a Wikipedia page on the topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence TLDR: an agent of the state can legally use violence in the enforcement of his duties, a citizen can only use violence legally in specifically defined incidents of self defense. A citizen cannot act in self defense against an agent of the state without legal repercussions.
>the monopoly of violence is a widely discussed Yeah but something being widely discussed doesn't mean it's not completely devoid of meaning or substance. Scientology is widely discussed. That's an ad populum argument. > TLDR: an agent of the state can legally use violence Legally to whom? Is there some international court that would come and say "what your nation-state is doing is illegal"? What difference does this make in a democracy? In a democracy, I elect the state. Most developed states have similar rules for citizens that they do for police aka "state enforcers of violence". This is like saying The State has a monopoly on bus driving because they employ bus drivers but I can only drive buses in very specific circumstances. Who cares? What is the value of this argument?
>”legally to whom?” Itself, obviously. Maintaining the monopoly on violence, that is, criminalizing organized non-state parties that seek to enforce violence, and criminalizing violence against property or person save for specific circumstances, is the very mechanism through which a state legitimizes itself. That is, it maintains law, order, and governance over a region by ensuring any actor faces legal repercussions for using violence in a way the state deems illegal. If it loses that monopoly, the state destabilizes and loses control of a region. Think of the neighborhoods in Mexico where the local enforcers are all cartel, rather than uncorrupt members of the Mexican national government. These regions are in essence outside of government control because the cartel uses violence to enforce its own laws and regulations, it has monopolized violence in the controlled region. >”what difference does this make in a democracy?” Well, in a stable democracy, the monopoly on violence is passed between executive administrations peacefully, all agents of the government adhere to the new executive administration. In an unstable democracy, the party in power may not desire to pass on the monopoly, it may use the monopoly to enact legally sanctioned violence against its political opposition, including assassination, imprisonment, exile, etc etc. no matter the form of government, democratic or authoritarian, the government wields this monopoly. >”most developed states have similar rules for citizens as they do for state enforcers of violence” Of course they do, if the state enforcers can act with total impunity, whether they are police or military, the stability of the nation-state would be severely threatened. The nation-state must ensure that it is protected from the citizens it polices as well as the agents it sends to do the policing. Just because the state dictates what level of violence its enforcers can use given various circumstances is by no means a contradiction. Police in the United States, for example, are beholden to protocol, but have substantial leeway in the form of qualified immunity. They have extra protection in the enforcement of violence that citizens do not, because they enforce violence in situations which are not self defense. A police officer can legally hold you at gunpoint if he suspects you committed a crime. A citizen cannot do so unless protecting himself or his property, and even then, the citizen is beholden to regulations on appropriate use of force that vary from state to state which are much stricter than regulations for police. >”who cares?” Understanding how nation-states function, from their creation, to their maintenance over time, is pretty important politically. It helps us understand past and current political situations, such as the Taliban becoming the de jure government of Afghanistan, and to predict future political situations. The Taliban became the de jure government of Afghanistan by monopolizing violence, which the former de jure government was too weak to maintain. If you don’t see the importance in understanding the nature of existing or prior geopolitical entities and the methods through which they exist, that’s fine, but people in positions to affect geopolitics should and often do care, or at least they hire cabinets and advisors who do.
This is a rage bait article, there is a huge difference in pointing out that terrorism has worked in the favour of many factions effectively, and supporting it yourself, redditors wouldn’t get that though.
Yeah, its a frankly bizarre position for the paper of record to take for something she wrote before ever nominated for this role.
From the headline, it doesn't even sound like they're taking a position. It's honestly one of the most neutral headlines I've read in a while but I can see how someone scrolling past and not really taking it it could read it as inflammatory.
The issue isn't that the headline is wrong vis-a-vis the story, it's that the story is considered newsworthy at all.
💯 and somehow, this sub is having a relatively measured response to it.
Plus, it's behind a paywall and you can't even get any information about it. They do that a lot in this sub, it's frustrating.
please enlighten us
You really shouldn't need help to understand what the comment is saying...
> ~~redditors~~ **Globe and Mail readers** wouldn’t get that though. FTFY
I mean...were they wrong though?
Yes, IMO. There's an enormous difference between calculated armed resistance against the other armed apparatus of the State and indiscriminate terrorism. Ché Guevara also concluded that acts of terror largely harmed the Cuban revolutionary efforts by forfeiting its bravest combatants for what ends up being a propaganda deficit. Individual acts of terror are also fruitless. What did Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, or any of the recent mass killers achieve? Nothing, except making some fertilizers and firearms subject to more regulation -- gg.
The paper doesn’t reference indiscriminate terrorism. It’s a discussion on the transition in armed conflict methodology. The paper is correct. This article is implying that the author is stating that terrorism is morally viable. What they’re actually saying is that it has been an effective tool in modern armed conflict.
Hmm, going to need a source for that allegation about Che. It's been a while since I read his book, but him and Cinfuegos didn't seem to have any problem with bombings and ambushes. The Americans have been training reactionary Cuban terrorists ever since and all it has done is create a huge security liability or them in Florida.
> Timothy McVeigh McVeigh actually changed US govt policy on how they approached right wing extremists, you can find statements from former officials very high in the FBI, DOJ, etc. who state McVeigh 100% changed how they approached certain events & that they needed to avoid the optics of events like Ruby Ridge & Waco. You don't have to agree with their actions, or even the fact they did change policy, to acknowledge that policy can be changed from acts of terrorism
> Ted Kaczynski I mean, we're still talking about him and reading the manifesto if you're curious enough. You can kinda sorta see where he was coming from. He was a nutjob but I guess he thought he was reaching within his grasp as far as getting his message out. He was a genius who had a psychotic break and thought it was necessary enough that he had to make violent threats to ensure that people heard it. There are semi-nonviolent protests that are basically just proofs of concept, [like this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Luty). Both were ineffective. They worked against themselves. They just made the unthinking cohort more scared. Just own-goals. We're too atomized to have a realistic Roundheads vs. Royalists situation. "Terrorism" works if it's organized rebellion, not just madmen.
Proud MacGill alumnus.
Really not the point. That's not the kind of thing he should be saying.
I prefer not to censor academics.
How about this then. Don't put somebody in a position of power that has to with human rights that makes this kind of argument.
You know the paper doesn’t say terrorism is good or recommended, right?
Get serious. Saying its effective is akin to endorsing it. Just like you shouldn't go around telling people how dealing drugs is an effective way to make money.
If one were in charge of coming up with a plan of action for dealing with drug dealers in their city/country/whatever, I would actually be deeply concerned if they were unable to acknowledge that dealing drugs does make people a lot of money. It would indicate that they are either ignorant of the facts, or wilfully denying reality. Either way, they would not be capable of addressing the problem properly. Understanding what draws people toward undesirable actions is step one of addressing them.
What next? Head of the UN saying hey you know what? Genocide is a pretty effective tool to effect change in the world.
No
That's what you get when you pick based on identity politics and not skills. Because it's 2015
If you're someone advocating for human rights, you need to understand how rights violators operate. It's not cynical, it sounds like a basic competency of the job to me.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has nothing to do with terrorism. They hear complaints from people thinking being asked to do their job is a violation of their human rights.
>has nothing to do with terrorism. I disagree. I'm going to use an obvious and extreme example that we're all familiar with: the Taliban (terrorists) run Afghanistan, right? Part of their terror campaign is making women and girls afraid to exist in public because of all the rules banning them from participating outside the home. The risk imprisonment, torture, death, and so forth -- that's the terror part, and the targeted group is having their rights violated under the regime's rules. It is extremely effective, and by "rational" I understand that they mean the Taliban are not acting willy-nilly - controlling women and girls is a way to control 50% of the population. "Rational" doesn't mean good, it means strategic and in pursuit of a particular outcome. Now zoom down - you can probably see how "terror" manifests to a lesser degree in ways you're familiar with: bosses who discourage accommodations and threaten a loss of promotion if they're used, is one example. IK what the CHRC does, but I will also push back on it only being a tribunal/administrative process; they are also responsible for understanding systemic and structural manifestations of power and oppression, rights promotions and violations, etc.
Ok I suppose that type of terrorism is effective. Which really boils down to fear in general being effective.
I feel like you are having trouble distinguishing between (1) endorsement of a tactic pursued in a political contest qua it's morality, and (2) noting, irrespective of morality, that the historical record shows the tactic is successful
Historical record does not show the tactic is successful.
that's an argument to have with this new human rights appointee person. I'm agnostic on this question, I haven't read their paper. I will say though that there is some real thought police shit happening in this thread: people are getting made for an argument this person made with no actual attempt to understand the argument or critically examin it against any evidence.
There is a huge difference between noting that terrorism is successful and saying it's rational.
? A rational strategy is one that gets the results you want from it. So no, there's not a huge difference at all?
[удалено]
This is not a standard definition. In this context, what is meant is that terrorism is (apparently) likely to advance the political goals of political extremists, at what they consider to be an acceptable cost. Understanding that they think this way, and that they will often receive positive reinforcement for following through on these thoughts (in that their political beliefs will often actually be advanced) is necessary to oppose them and to care for their victims. Understanding a disease doesn’t mean you agree with it. Understanding what your opponent thinks their best move in a game is doesn’t mean you agree. And if you do agree, it doesn’t mean that you want them to play it.
Honestly, these people doing the appointments are insane. They’re just insane. Sigh.
I forgot terrorism arrived only in the 2010’s and most suicide bombers identified as he/hims and recognized that they walked on occupied land before blowing themselves up /s
Underrated comment... this had me laughing hard
"Because it's 2015" Je me souviens.
You’re literally doing the same thing, making assumptions about someone and their competency based on their identity, instead of their skills. Perhaps read the article and look a bit deeper? You can make an academic argument about something without supporting it yourself. Get out of your echo chamber and stop being the mindless parrot you’re assuming others of being.
>when you pick based on identity politics and not skills Can you explain what you mean by this? What does it mean to be picked "based on identity politics"?
They have no idea, they're simply spouting whatever they've been spoon fed. An academic writing a paper discussing the practical efficacy of terrorism in an asymmetric power dynamic is totally different from advocating for terrorism. Indeed, to fight terrorism and terrorists, wouldn't one of the first, and most important tasks be to try to understand them? This is a non story, except for the calls for censorship.
So, do we pretend to be angry about this argument until someone reminds us who's in charge of Afghanistan?
Well, supporting terrorism, whether it’s you or a high-level official who has power over human rights cases that could involve antisemitism is a concern. Here’s a tip: don’t ever support terrorism.
Just because you think a strategy is effective doesn’t mean you agree or support it.
He’s not supporting terrorism? He just pointed out that it has worked in the past?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Here’s a tip: don’t ever support terrorism. Got it, I'll stop supporting the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, the Arab Spring movement, and Nelson Mandela.
French Resistance got up to some terrorist-y shenanigans as well.
And the Polish Underground State/Armia Krajowa.
Have no opinions on the guy, but I’m not going to judge him based on a theoretical academic argument. I’m a strong believer in the right to free speech, especially in an academic setting. Coming to such an unsavory conclusion may allow governments to understand certain actions and better defend against them.
Another shit article by the Globe and Mail. Kind of sad too that redditors on here can’t think hard enough that just because he’s from that he’s a bad public servant. Headline suggests that he supports terrorism, when he actually just wrote an article about the effectiveness of terrorism on geopolitical landscapes. It would be like if we started shitting on a researcher for describing the biology behind infanticide because “how could someone whose not evil ever do that”
Choices based upon idealogy and not merit usually don't work out well. This is yet another one. The idea of background checks and semi-adequate HR practices are not factors.
F
This is a plausible scenario but for any government to easily and quickly increase their power they can stage a terrorist attack. If they want to reduce the public’s attention on an important issue get the media to focus on a foreign or domestic terrorist attack. If your enemy is not admitting defeat you can hire mercenary/terrorist groups to stage attacks on infrastructure or to simply cause as much chaos in a population center. If you’re a terrorist group you can engage in these vile acts against your enemies continuously for the purpose of destroying your enemies morale, accept some agreement or have them not be able to fulfill certain obligations with their own allies.
As a thought experiment/academic exercise? Who cares?
[Non paywall](https://archive.is/TaiDb) Because JFC and keep in mind this is who will be in charge of some parts of the enforcement of Bill C-63 Edit : I would love to get access to this [Populism and the International Law of Self-Determination: Charting the Emergence of Populist Legal Movements from South Africa to Palestine](https://brill.com/view/journals/pyio/18/1/article-p92_4.xml)
"*Birju Dattani, who this month was appointed by Justice Minister Arif Virani* as the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, was criticized this week for failing to disclose his past activities as a graduate student in London when applying for the post. Jewish groups and MPs said this week that he should have divulged, among other things, that in 2015 *when pursuing graduate studies in Britain under the name Mujahid Dattani*, he had shared panels with a former Guantanamo bay detainee about the war on terror, and a member of an Islamic fundamentalist group that favours global Sharia law." Lived under 2 different names....that adds to the greasiness. One of the first acts of the next government should be to kick this individual to the curb.
>Lived under 2 different names....that adds to the greasiness. Maybe, maybe not. It really depends on the reasons.
So... what was his take on how international law and self-determination deals with non-state violence? I feel like that's the really important bit here, and the preview isn't enough to say.
Remind me why we have a human rights commission? This is just a parallel court system with a baked-in racist (anti-white) ideology
What are the successes of terrorism?
Wonder how he would feel if women used this tactic on men in certain countries ?
Its also ripe for an uprising
CONTEXT PLS lol
Academic: Cancerous brain tumors are highly effective at killing humans. Right wing media: Acadmeic is pro cancer!!!!!111
One person's terror group is often another person's freedom fighter. During WWII a lot of anti-German resistance fighters could reasonably be called terrorists by the German government based on the activities of the groups.
Combined with his online moniker "Mujahid" - an Islamic term for someone engaged in jihad, this is deeply concerning - it looks like religious cult hijacking of our democratic institutions. All of this looks like a planned campaign - both Liberal minister of justice Arif Virani and Mr Dattani hail from Muslim minority in Uganda, and belong to the same Islamic Ishmailian sect. Arif Virani designs Bill C-63, and claims he intends to use it to prosecute those who he considers "anti-Islam". He then hires Mr Dattani as a commissioner to oversee Bill C-63 implementation.
The US is the foremost expert on this.
So did Data on TNG 35 years ago. This isn’t new.
Im actually really impressed with the overall discussion happening on this thread and those that are taking the time to explain this concept to others.
Of course! Nothing more comforting than unfolding a satchel of the tools of the trade in front of a tied up unwilling participant. Facial impressions are priceless
Needs an immediate termination from position. Terrorism is neither rational nor ever "accomplishes" anything. You think you've got what you want, but you've traumatized or killed people.
I guess according to his logic then, waterboarding is also an effective method for hydrating prisoners?.....my issue rests with where this so-called logical discourse runs in everyday calculations concerning human rights violations. I think this person should either be forced to stand up and explain/defend their actions...and resign if necessary.
This is all being paid for with our money
surprise level zero from the true dope government
I’m shocked I say. Absolutely shocked.
This person likely thinks bill 21 is a horrible human rights abuse too. Fuck this country.
Does that extend to "laying siege" to a city?
I wonder how often these types of things are used in the public. I'd imagine more than we think. The non-stop 24/7 doom cycle that was covid felt like psychological terrorism.